from the why-does-anyone-take-them-seriously dept

I don't have cable. I almost never watch TV. I never see cable news unless someone points me to a clip online. Yet apparently, with the extended holiday weekend this past weekend, cable news went absolutely bonkers with vague, unsubstantiated claims from government officials about how everyone should be on heightened alert for an attack from ISIS:

The Morell appearance was particularly ridiculous, with it posting during the episode the following map of "recent ISIS arrests" in the US to emphasize the bullshit claim that ISIS was already in the US and plotting attacks:

The problem, of course, is that none of those arrests were really connected to ISIS in any serious way. Nearly all of them were actually plots cooked up by the FBI to trick gullible individuals that they were in on an ISIS plot.

Before the weekend, Adam Johnson put together an astounding list of how Homeland Security and the FBI are 0 for 40 in their last 40 predictions for terrorist attacks inside the US -- raising serious questions about why the news media actually takes any of these "warnings" seriously. And that doesn't even get into the fact that DHS and the FBI have failed to stop actual plots like the Boston bombing. Here's the list that Johnson put together:

The FBI has all the incentive in the world to issue warnings and no incentive whatsoever to not issue warnings. Issuing warnings has no downside, while not doing so is all downside.

The FBI, like all agencies of the government, does not operate in a political vacuum. Emphasizing the “ISIS threat” at home necessarily helps prop up the broader war effort the FBI’s boss, the president of the United States, must sell to a war-weary public. The incentive is to therefore highlight the smallest threats. This was a feature that did not go unnoticed during the Bush years, but has since fallen out of fashion.

It has no actual utility. What does it mean to be “more vigilant”? It’s a vague call to alertness that officials, aside from “beefing up security” by local police, never quite explain what it means. If the FBI wanted to tell local police departments to up their security of the 4th of July weekend, surely they could do so quietly, without the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security having to go on all major networks talking over b-roll of ISIS in apocalyptic terms.

There's also one other reason which is related to the first reason above, but is slightly different: if there is actually a big terrorist attack (and not one they can wave off), DHS and FBI officials will be hauled before Congress and asked why they didn't spot it or warn about it. So this is, once again, an example of officials wanting to cover their own asses. As we noted recently in explaining why surveillance state defenders don't care that the programs they defend don't work, a lot of the mental calculus involves covering their own asses in the event something bad does happen. No one wants to have to explain that what they did was useless, so they feel the need to "do something." Combine that with the near total lack of downside, and of course, there are going to be random predictions based on nothing.

So the real question, though, is how come cable news feels the need to fall for it too? As Tevor Timm notes, all this really does is help terrorists in "terrorizing" the American public:

All of this doesn’t mean that a terrorist attack on US won’t eventually happen. Simple math tells us that, no matter the precautions taken or the civil liberties taken away, one may get through. But it is a rare event, and one which human beings have lived with throughout our history. By magnifying it and terrifying everyone, we’re only doing the terrorists’ job for them.

from the letting-the-terrorists-win dept

Every so often over the past decade or so in the "age of terrorism," someone has raised the issue of why we treat "terrorism" as somehow distinct from criminal activity. We let the intelligence community, rather than law enforcement, focus on terrorism (even as some in law enforcement -- notably, the FBI and the NYPD -- have tried to redefine their missions as being about terrorism). In the past, I've actually seen the wisdom of treating terrorism and criminal activities as separate, especially when terrorism was part of a larger, coordinated effort (especially when connected with state-level actors). However, these days, we're quick to call so much terrorism, it's really problematic. And not just because of the semantic argument. This hit home reading Hamilton's thought-provoking piece pointing out that "Terrorism Works."

His argument, in short, is that terrorism "works" because our reaction to it generally is the reaction of those who have been successfully terrified:

Two men with a rifle paralyze Washington, DC for weeks. Two men with a couple of homemade bombs paralyze Boston for days. One man on a plane with a dud bomb packed inside his boots has an entire nation taking off its shoes at the airport for years to come. A small group of religious zealots send three U.S. presidential administrations down a nightmarish rabbithole of drone war, torture, and total surveillance of the citizenry.

Terrorism works. Against us, terrorism works very, very well. Our collective insistence on treating terrorist acts as something categorically different than crime—as something harder to understand, something scarier, something perpetrated not by humans but by monsters—feeds the ultimate goals of terrorists. It makes us dumb. It makes us primitive. It is our boogeyman, and no amount of rational talk will drive it out of our minds.

That point, that we treat terrorism as different than crime really hits home. When there's a criminal spree -- bank robberies, burglaries, car thefts -- we may make certain changes in how we act (get better locks, security systems, etc.) but we don't seem to change our entire national psyche. We don't get terrified by crime. We take some actions to mitigate the risk, but we get on with our lives. When we call things "terrorism" we seem to let all perspective go out the window.

We switch from a mode of trying to minimize the risk to an absolutely impossible ideal of eliminating the threat entirely. That's dangerous. It tosses out anything involving cost-benefit analysis. It tosses out common sense. And, most importantly, it seems to toss out our rights, privacy and freedoms.

There's a way to deal with this and it's to treat most of these things as criminal activity, and to react accordingly. But that doesn't generate quite the same headlines or opportunities for politician grandstanding, so it probably won't happen.

from the US-still-tops-in-'sound-and-fury,'-trailing-the-pack-in-'significanc dept

If there's anything our government can do well, it's take a word loaded with tension and abuse it to the point of abstraction. First, we had "war." The word described the hellish events of the First and Second World War, along with armed, bloody conflicts dating back to the rebellious creation of the nation itself. Now, it's simply a term applied to any conflict with the weight of a self-serving bureaucracy propelling it. A "war" on drugs. A "war" on illiteracy. And so on.

The horrors endured by both sides of the Vietnam "conflict" were never afforded the gravity of the word "war." The same goes with every military intervention since then. We've been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years, but there's no "war" there -- at least nothing officially declared. There's only violence and death and occasional sharp bursts of more violence and death. There's a "war" on drugs in Afghanistan, but that's even more of an abject failure than our other long-running military efforts -- $7 billion spent and poppy production at an all-time high.

There's a "war" on terror in progress as well, but this brings us to another word robbed of any gravitas by constant abuse: "terror." Terrorism is what fuels our nation's security/surveillance state. But "terror" and "terrorism" -- words that once carried some weight -- are now abstractions. They're buzzwords pressed into service by the US government as a sales pitch for an illusion of security. And it all can be yours for less than a Fourth Amendment violation a day.

Which brings us to another set of loaded words that once were evocative but now have been stripped of their ability to move masses.

An emergency declared by President Jimmy Carter on the 10th day of the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 remains in effect almost 35 years later.

A post-9/11 state of national emergency declared by President George W. Bush — and renewed six times by President Obama — forms the legal basis for much of the war on terror.

Tuesday, President Obama informed Congress he was extending another Bush-era emergency for another year, saying "widespread violence and atrocities" in the Democratic Republic of Congo "pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States."

Declaring a temporary state of emergency has it uses. It temporarily expands government powers in order to facilitate speedy responses. It de-gunks the system of its red tape residue and allows help to arrive when it's needed, rather than weeks after it would have any impact.

But this isn't the case here. Temporary expansions of power have morphed into the new status quo. Since 1976, the government has declared 53 "emergencies." Almost every single one still remains in effect.

Part of the problem is the office of the president. For thirty-plus years, the office has become accustomed to the extra powers granted with each flip of the "emergency" switch. States of emergency are extended. And extended again. Only one state of emergency has been allowed to lapse during the last decade. There is a curb to this power, but like the many other oversight positions its entrusted with, Congress seemingly has no interest in fulfilling its duty.

The 1976 law requires each house of Congress to meet within six months of an emergency to vote it up or down. That's never happened.

And so, "state of emergency" becomes shorthand for government abuse. It conjures up images of towns destroyed by national disasters or extreme threats from foreign nations, but in practice it's rarely anything more than a leading indicator of governmental power grabs. What can this nation's government do during a "state of emergency?" This very small sampling of "extra powers" is chilling.

Reshape the military, putting members of the armed forces under foreign command, conscripting veterans, overturning sentences issued by courts-martial and taking over weather satellites for military use.

Suspend environmental laws, including a law forbidding the dumping of toxic and infectious medical waste at sea.

Bypass federal contracting laws, allowing the government to buy and sell property without competitive bidding.

"Emergency" is the new normal. For thirty years this nation has "struggled" under multiple states of emergency. What should be a very limited, very short-term solution to unexpected or dangerous situations is now indistinguishable from everyday life. More fear is sold by government agencies and purchased -- via tax dollars -- by a public unable to prevent the checks from clearing. Like the boy who cried wolf, the government has stripped "emergency" of its galvanizing power. Hearing a "state of emergency" being declared by the president most likely won't move hearts reflexively to throats but will prompt a certain number of hands to make protective moves towards wallets and purse strings. And it will definitely move the average American closer to cynicism than patriotism.

When everything is an "emergency" that never ends, nothing is. President Obama says there's no need to declare a state of emergency over the worldwide spread of Ebola. He's likely right, but the words are meaningless. Declare it. Don't declare it. It makes no difference to anyone outside of those directly benefiting from (likely permanent) expansion of government powers.

What is the government going to do once it's used up all the evocative words? Where does it go next? Apocalypse? The government is inherently untrustworthy, and its inability to express itself without using buzzwords, hyperbole and the broadest of strokes isn't helping.

Voter apathy? Record lows in approval ratings? These are only symptoms. The disease is the government itself and its willingness to present everything as the Worst Ever in order to erode rights, expand power and appropriate public funding.

from the words-mean-something dept

We've written before about how the NSA uses its own definitions of some fairly basic English words, in order to pretend to have the authority to do things it probably... doesn't really have authority to do. It's become clear that this powergrab-by-redefinition is not unique to the NSA when it comes to the executive branch of the government. Earlier this year, we also wrote about the stunning steady redefinition of words within the infamous "Authorization to Use Military Force" (AUMF) that was passed by Congress immediately after September 11, 2001. It officially let the President use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." But, over time, the AUMF was being used to justify efforts against folks who had nothing to do with September 11th, leading to this neat sleight of hand in which the military started pretending that the AUMF also applied to "associated forces." That phrase appears nowhere in the AUMF, but it's a phrase that is regularly repeated and claimed by the administration and the military.

But, it goes beyond that. As Trevor Timm highlights over at The Guardian, pretty much the entire drone bombing (drones, by the way, are also apparently "authorized" by the AUMF) of Syria involves the administration conveniently redefining basic English to suit its purposes. Let's start with the authorization for the bombing itself:

In other words: the legal authority provided to the White House to strike al-Qaida and invade Iraq more than a dozen years ago now means that the US can wage war against a terrorist organization that’s decidedly not al-Qaida, in a country that is definitely not Iraq.

It's amazing what you can accomplish when you pretend words mean something entirely different than they do. Hell, if you can just make words mean whatever the hell you want them to mean, there's no such thing as a limitation on what you can do. It's all fair game. Who needs laws when the law is basically a mad libs for you to fill in what you want?

Moving on. The definitional jujitsu covers the people who were killed by the bombing as well. Civilians? What civilians?

[A]n “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.

To translate: “imminent” can mean a lot of things … including “not imminent”.

This is pretty neat. Anything else you've got for us? How about "combat" or "ground troops"? They're not what you think they are either, because a malleable language can do anything:

As the New York Times’s Mark Landler detailed over the weekend, White House has “an extremely narrow definition of combat … a definition rejected by virtually every military expert.” According to the Obama administration, the 1600 “military advisers” that have steadily been flowing in Iraq fall outside this definition, despite the fact that “military advisers” can be: embedded with Iraqi troops; carry weapons; fire their weapons if fired upon; and call in airstrikes. In the bizarro dictionary of war employed by this White House, none of that qualifies as “combat”.

Yes, the English language changes over time and that's generally a good thing. But we're not talking about the way the word "decimate" once meant to lop off 10% and now means "destroy everything." This is a deliberate misrepresentation of things.

Hell, this seems to go further than Orwell even imagined with his authoritarian use of language and rewriting of history. In this case, rather than just saying "we were always at war with Eurasia," he could have just changed the definition of "we," "were," "always," "at," "war," "with," and "Eurasia," and it would have been that much more powerful.

from the terrorists-have-already-won dept

Recently, Techdirt has been following the Australian government's moves to bring in intrusive new surveillance powers. The "justification" for all this is, of course, "terrorism", which has become the lazy politician's excuse for everything, and has already led to episodes of ridiculous over-reaction in Australia. So it hardly comes as a surprise that the worsening situation in the Middle East has brought forth even more of the same, in the form of the "Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014" (pdf). An accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (pdf) gives a good summary of its rationale:

1. Australia faces a serious and ongoing terrorist threat. The escalating terrorist situation in Iraq and Syria poses an increasing threat to the security of all Australians both here and overseas. Existing legislation does not adequately address the domestic security threats posed by the return of Australians who have participated in foreign conflicts or undertaken training with extremist groups overseas ('foreign fighters').

2. This Bill provides a suite of measures which are specifically designed to strengthen and improve Australia’s counter-terrorism legislative framework to respond to the foreign fighter threat. It will provide additional powers for security agencies to deal with the threat of terrorism within Australia and that posed by Australians who participate in terrorist activities overseas. It will further counter terrorism through improving border security measures and by cancelling welfare payments for persons involved in terrorism.

The Bill introduces the concept of a "delayed notification search warrant" -- often referred to in the United States as a 'no-knock warrant' -- which would allow Australian Federal Police to search premises without prior warning and "without having to produce the warrant at the time of entry and search".

The Explanatory Memorandum details an important new capability relating to computers:

As computers and electronic devices are becoming increasingly interconnected, files physically held on one computer are often accessible from another computer. Accordingly, it is critical that law enforcement officers executing a search warrant are able to search not only material on computers located on the search premises but also material accessible from those computers but located elsewhere. This provision would enable the tracing of a suspect's internet activity and viewing of material accessed by the suspect through the use of that equipment.

On Wednesday afternoon, [Australian Attorney-General] Senator Brandis confirmed that under the legislation, ASIO [Australia's spy agency] would be able to use just one warrant to access numerous devices on a network.

The warrant would be issued by the director-general of ASIO or his deputy.

"There is no arbitrary or artificial limit on the number of devices," Senator Brandis told the senate.

This means that the entire Australian internet could be monitored by just one warrant if ASIO wanted to do so, according to experts and digital rights advocates including the Australian Lawyers Alliance, journalist union the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Electronic Frontiers Australia.

Whether or not new powers are needed to address the problem of "foreign fighters" returning home, clearly that ability to monitor the entire Australian Internet with just one warrant is completely disproportionate, an assault on citizens' privacy, and ripe for abuse by the authorities. It underlines once again that abrogating basic freedoms in order to "fight terrorism" simply means the terrorists have already won.

If the NSA has a chance to hold off what now appears to be near inevitable, it will need to update its rhetorical ploys. Alexander offered nothing much in the way of new arguments, which is only going to hurt the agency's position. It looks as though the old stuff isn't really working anymore. His assertion that the Section 215 program has led to 50+ terrorist attacks averted has disintegrated. Sen. Leahy raised additional questions about the efficiency of the 702 program (internet metadata) in the hunting terrorists. No answer was forthcoming but the agency head implied it would take much longer than next Wednesday's hearing to come up with an answer.

No surprises here either, as Gen. Alexander almost literally played the 9/11 card.

"Metadata is a way of knowing where those books are in the library, and a way of focusing our collection... to knowing, where are the bad books," Alexander says.

He holds up an index card – it's meant to be an old-style card-catalog card (sorry, millennials) – on which are listed the categories of information encompassed by "metadata": time, date, duration, contact numbers.

Then he returns to the 9/11 attacks and says, as he always does, that the attack might have been stopped by a metadata collection program like the USA has now.

Might have been. Except it wasn't. Sen. Leahy called Alexander out for using this tired ploy.

Leahy jumps in and says the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks also has been put down to a failure to communicate within the intelligence community. US agents had the info they needed, they just failed to share it with one another.

There's no tread left on those tires, General. The Guardian points out this is the first time Alexander has been interrupted while deploying the "could have prevented 9/11" argument.

"I don't know a better way to do it,” he said. "It's like holding onto a hornets' nest. We're getting stung. You've asked us to do this for the good of the nation … nobody's thought of a better way. We can't let the nation down."

That was Alexander's justification. There's no other way but a bulk, untargeted metadata collection containing millions of records of non-suspects.

But when Alexander says there's no other way to keep Americans safe, he's (no surprise) lying. There is another way and Alexander knows it because the NSA was forced (by the FISA court) to accomplish the task of fighting terrorism without being given access to millions of non-relevant phone records. FISA Judge Walton's orders, which followed on the heels of the admission of widespread abuse of the Section 215 collections, forced the NSA to seek court approval just to search what had previously been collected.

Since the March 5, 2009 FISA Court order, the Court's approval has been required for each selector before it is tasked for BR FISA metadata analysis. On Mar 21 NSA resumed manual access to BR FISA metadata, allowing chaining [redacted] of FISA Court-approved selectors associated with [redacted] following multiple operational and technical reviews to ensure compliance.

The minimization procedures… have been so frequently and systemically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall BR regime has never functioned effectively.

Nearly all of the call detail records collected pertain to communications of non-US persons who are not the subject of an FBI investigation… [or] are communications of US persons who are not the subject of an FBI investigation… and are data that otherwise could not be legally captured in bulk by the government.

So, there are other ways to accomplish this and the agency has had to work within stricter limitations in the past. The multiple flaws in Alexander's assertions are highlighted in this statement. Most of what's collected isn't pertinent to investigations and is, in fact, bordering on illegal. The only thing saving Alexander's favorite collection is some very favorable readings of the Third Party Doctrine and secret interpretations of the laws governing these data hauls.

Legislative efforts being made aim to roll back some of this power, something Alexander can't bear to see happen. If nothing else, a neutral storage site that can only be accessed by court-aprroved RAS selectors would be a start. But according to the chief spy, these limitations would lead to another 9/11. He wants it all and he wants unfettered access. There are other ways of compiling and searching metadata. Alexander knows this, but he has no interest in a more targeted approach.

This is Alexander's "hornet nest." Any stings he collects while handling it are solely his fault. If he doesn't like the pain associated with handling the hornet's nest, maybe he shouldn't have fought so hard to keep holding it.

from the odd dept

We've mocked the NSA for the way it always reverts to FUD about "terrorists" to show how "successful" programs like PRISM have been, but then also reverts to talking about cybersecurity as a focus to make the surveillance seem more like it's about protecting people, rather than spying on them. However, as some of the latest revealed documents show, perhaps the NSA has its talking points all mixed up. There's plenty to discuss concerning the revelations about the NSA spying on French phone calls, but some people have noticed that, while some of the presentation documents revealed with that story were revealed before, there are a few new ones as well, including this one:

The key thing here is the report that the NSA was able to use its FAA authority (apparently via both PRISM and "upstream collection" -- which is tapping directly into the backbone via telcos) to figure out that someone, perhaps the Chinese, had gotten access to a defense contractor's network and was either preparing to, or at least had the ability to get 150 gigs of important data out. The NSA alerted the FBI which alerted the contractor and they plugged the hole the same day. While that certainly seems like a good thing, it's not entirely clear stopping such hacking is really worth giving up a ton of privacy, though it does show, again, why Keith Alexander keeps demanding access to pretty much everything. Of course, you'd think that the NSA would be a bit more forward in promoting this success story, rather than its bogus claims about stopping terrorist attacks, which have fallen apart under scrutiny.

The other interesting slide is this one:

It shows some of the differences between PRISM and the upstream collections, both of which the NSA believes are authorized under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. PRISM involves being able to collect specific data from the 9 specific companies which have been named (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Skype, AOL, Paltalk, YouTube), while "upstream" is what the NSA gets from tapping the backbone via telcos. "DNR Selectors" are the phone call metadata collected under a different program (Section 215 of the Patriot Act) which they apparently can filter the upstream data collection against. "DNI" is internet data (email addresses and such). Once again, it looks like tapping the backbone provides a hell of a lot more data, but it lacks the ability to "access stored communications," which they get via PRISM.

The other interesting tidbit to me, is the "direct relationship" claim. Note that with PRISM, it says "only through FBI," which suggests a reason why the PRISM companies have insisted that they've never been involved in any NSA program. It looks like they may have only had to deal with FBI requests (and associated FISA court orders). It's just that the data the FBI gets is then shared with the NSA.

from the reportedly,-assailant-also-made-'pew-pew-pew'-noises-with-his-mouth dept

Much like non-terroristic threats are now the new terroristic threats, in today's climate of zero tolerance policies, fake weapons have become the new real weapons. Pop tart bitten into a vaguely gun-ish shape? That's a weapon. Fingers clasped together in a gun-like fashion? That's a weapon. Drawing of a gun? That's a weapon. And now, virtual, video-game, only-appear-on-a-powered-up-iPhone guns? Those are weapons.

A student at H. L. Bourgeois High School accused of using a mobile phone app to simulate shooting his classmates was booked and jailed in Terrebonne Parish.

There's no part of that preceding sentence that isn't mind-flayingly ridiculous. Want to see how lifelike this "simulation" is? Here's some "exciting" video of the app (Real Strike) in action.

If you'll note, the other mall patrons don't seem the least bit alarmed that someone is firing off round after virtual round at them with an iPhone. In fact, everyone looks completely unaware, not to mention unscathed. I suppose it might be a bit more unsettling if this were uploaded and publicly viewable [oh wait...], but the emphasis is on "a bit." Unless you're Major Malcolm Wolfe of the Terrebonne Sheriff's Department.

[Major Malcolm] Wolfe's office says a 15-year-old was arrested after posting a video on YouTube using the Real Strike app to shoot other kids at school, “He said it was a result of him being frustrated and tired of being bullied. He said that he had no intentions of hurting anybody. We have to take all threats seriously and we have no way of knowing that without investigating and getting to the bottom of it.”

He says the student was arrested for terrorizing and interference of the operation of a school.

Wolfe says "investigating," but nothing else in his statements indicates any sort of investigation has taken place. As for the charges, they seem disproportionate, to say the least. No one was terrorized or interfered with while the video was being recorded. After the video was uploaded, there still wasn't much "terrorizing" or "interfering" occurring. People were being not being physically shot by an arsenal of fake weapons contained entirely within a kid's cell phone, nor were they being threatened in any specific sense. Just because it was (temporarily) uploaded to YouTube doesn't suddenly make the "shooting" more "real."

A. Terrorizing is the intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance dangerous to human life exists or is about to exist, with the intent of causing members of the general public to be in sustained fear for their safety; or causing evacuation of a building, a public structure, or a facility of transportation; or causing other serious disruption to the general public.

B. It shall be an affirmative defense that the person communicating the information provided for in Subsection A of this Section was not involved in the commission of a crime of violence or creation of a circumstance dangerous to human life and reasonably believed his actions were necessary to protect the welfare of the public.

C. Whoever commits the offense of terrorizing shall be fined not more than fifteen thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than fifteen years, or both.

That's a whole lot of time served and a hefty fine for playing an iPhone game. It's going to be pretty hard for a prosecutor to make this stick as none of the above really applies to the teen's actions. Some concerned parents contacted the authorities after viewing the video, but it's hard to believe the student's actions resulted in creating "sustained fear" or a "serious disruption." The school wasn't evacuated or put on lock down so other than someone in administration overreacting (and there's no details suggesting anyone has), there's really no "interference" there.

But I guess this all depends on whether the prosecutor is as easily moved to overreaction as the Sheriff's Department is. Wolfe sounds overly worried. Let's hope that's not contagious.

“You can’t ignore it,” says Major Malcolm Wolfe. “We don’t know at what time that game becomes reality.”

I don't know, Maj. Wolfe, but I'll try to guess. It becomes reality when the student has access to 25 military-grade weapons? Or access to any weapons? The willingness and ability to actually gun down his classmates with real weapons? His parents stated their son didn't have access to any guns. But still: safety.

Here's the money quote, the one that indicates that "safety" means overreacting.

“With all the school shooting (sic) we’ve had in the United States, it’s just not a very good game to be playing at this time,” according to Wolfe.

With all the school shootings? As a member of law enforcement, it might do Wolfe some good to exchange his hysteria for facts. The number of mass shootings (school or otherwise) isn't rising. Just because something happened recently doesn't mean it's increasing and just because you want to arrest a kid for exercising a little non-violent catharsis doesn't make this belief any more true.

And for all the tough talk by school districts and other authority figures about fighting bullying, it's the bullied kid who ends up in cuffs. Nice one, Team Safety First.

“I believe the behavior here has been escalating,” Judge Lynn Rooney said after reviewing a half dozen records of police and probation reports prosecutors submitted at the hearing. “And it’s very troubling.”

The reports included D’Ambrosio’s arrest in June after a fight over $20 with his older sister, who called police after locking herself in her room. During the argument, D’Ambrosio pushed her and, after she locked herself in her bedroom, threatened to stab her, according to the arrest report from June 21.

Police said D’Ambrosio admitted he said that, but said he was just upset. The case was continued on Oct. 17, and dismissed on April 17, exactly two weeks before he was arrested for the Facebook post.

Rooney said she also was troubled by a police report from November 2011, which said D’Ambrosio threatened to shoot two eighth-grade students. Police said he admitted to making that statement, but was only kidding.

D'Ambrosio's past is far from squeaky clean and he seems to have acquired a reputation for threatening others. (He also seems to let his better judgement take a backseat to mouth/keyboard -- the officer who arrested Cameron after his Facebook post knew him from a previous incident, one in which D'Ambrosio was hospitalized after being beaten so severely by another student that his spleen ruptured. This beating was apparently prompted by some Facebook comments D'Ambrosio directed towards the other student's girlfriend.)

So, D'Ambrosio clearly knows how to make specific threats directed towards specific individuals. But it took a vague "threat," delivered in the form of a horrible/horrific "rap" to finally get him locked up, threatened with a 20-year sentence and denied bail. Even Sheriff Joe Solomon, who went to great lengths to read between the lines of D'Ambrosio's Facebook post and attribute him with things he didn't actually say, admitted the post contained no specific threats.

I do want to make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any particular individuals but he did threaten to kill a bunch of people and specifically mentioned the Boston Marathon and the White House.

The first part of Solomon's sentence is true -- D'Ambrosio made no specific threats. The second part? Not so much. For clarification, here's the entire Facebook post currently being declared a "terroristic threat" by the state. This includes some additional verbiage (in bold) that wasn't contained in previous reporting.

All you haters keep my fuckin' name outcha mouths, got it? what the fuck I gotta do to get some props and shit huh? Ya'll wanme to fucking kill somebody? What the fuck do these fucking demons want from me? Fucking bastards I ain't no longer a person, I’m not in reality. So when u see me fucking go insane and make the news, the paper, and the fuckin federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t fucking cry or be worried because all YOU people fucking caused this shit. Fuck a boston bominb wait till u see the shit I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!

Rapper addresses haters, makes grandiose claims, plays up street cred with criminal references. Positively unremarkable, except that multiple students reported this status update to school administration. This doesn't necessarily mean these students felt threatened. It's equally believable that D'Ambrosio's mouth, attitude and behavior made him less than well-liked at his school.

Sheriff Solomon then took what little was offered and ran with it, leading us up to this point. But you have to wonder where state prosecutors will go with this as it heads through the judicial system. D'Ambrosio's lawyer points out there's not much here for the state to work with.

DuBosque argued in court that D’Ambrosio was not a danger because he was not threatening specific violence, and police found no explosives, weapons or other writing about violence when they searched his home. The post started out as lyrics, he said.

Because D’Ambrosio did not threaten to use a weapon in a specific place or against a specific person, the post did not meet the state statute’s requirements, DuBosque said.

The statute D'Ambrosio is charged with violating will need to be stretched to cover a "threat" that fails to meet most of the specifications. But once the word "terrorist" is introduced into the mix, specificities tend to suddenly become vague "guidelines" as the law is bent, beaten and painted to match.

On the plus side, D'Ambrosio has more than a few citizens working towards preventing both the First Amendment and the tactless rapper from going down the drain. A petition created by the Center for Rights and Fight For The Future asking for D'Ambrosio's release has gathered over 70,000 signatures. The local Center for Rights has also criticized the judge's decision to deny bail (as well as the charge itself), pointing out that D'Ambrosio is facing a stiffer sentence than if he had actually assaulted someone.

As I stated previously, I don't have a problem with something like this being investigated. But the end result should have been little more than "loudmouth teen says stupid shit," and perhaps some court-ordered counseling or supervised probation, considering his past behavior. Instead, we have a high school student facing a 20-year sentence for saying the wrong thing ("Boston bombinb" [sic]) at the wrong time (too soon).